2nd Amendment

gun laws

one-liner

gun control

gun violence

gun rights

Christianity

Jesus Christ

bumper sticker

1st Amendment

free speech

right to bear arms

gun ownership

school shooting

is a right of the state, backed by its people, to resist federal tyranny. And although a government body, the militia is specifically an instrument of state, not federal government.

On the other hand, Henigan recognizes that state governments relied on their militias to resist federal tyranny. He quotes Luther Martin's warning that in the event the states lost their militias, 'if the general government should attempt to oppress and enslave them, they could not have any possible means of self-defense.'42 Similarly, he reminds us that Madison assured the AntiFederalist that if the federal government should become tyrannical, 'the State governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger.' 43 It would appear, then, that Henigan is arguing against only an individual 'constitutional right co engage in armed insurrection against tyrannical authority, whether state or federal.' By contrast, he appears to believe that the amendment protects a right of the state, backed by its people, to resist federal tyranny. And although a government body, the militia is specifically 'an instrument of state government.'

is best argued through the prism of the American revolution which requires keeping the militia strong, organized, and broad, so as to protect ''ancient privileges' against the schemes of a corrupt government.

In this passage, Gerry argues that the best paradigm for interpreting the Second Amendment is the American Revolution. According to Gerry, that model teaches the classic Anti-Federalist lessons: all governments, including the new Congress, have the potential to behave oppressively... to that end, they raise armies and destroy militias... the people must therefore keep the militia strong, organized, and broad, so as to protect their ''ancient privileges'' against the schemes of a corrupt government.

is concerned with a communitarian right, rather than an individual right.

Professor Cress has argued, that the Second Amendment refers to a communitarian, rather than an individual, right.

is concerned with the protection of the possession of firearms only in connection with service in a militia and, hence, does not rule out gun control measures like that of the district of columbia.

Justice Stevens argues that the Second Amendment protects the possession of firearms only in connection with service in a militia and, hence, does not rule out gun control measures like that of the District of Columbia.

is firstly, a right that belongs not to individuals but to a militia, or a 'body of the people'... that is, a culturally united, institutionally yoked into a universal militia, and subject to state orders.

Remember, however, that the right to arms for revolution was subject to several critical constraints. First, the right of resistance belonged to the Body of the People, an entity that was (1) culturally united, (2) institutionally yoked into a universal militia by the state, and (3) subject to the state's orders except when the state had become demonstrably corrupt.

is, for the framers, such that any true second amendment revolution would have to involve a massive rising of the entire American people, nothing smaller. The framers were quick to condemn local uprisings as rebellions, not true revolutions.

Second, a revolution could occur only when the Body of the People had united behind resistance... any lesser movement constituted factional rebellion. Once the Framers had reconceptualized the whole as the United States, the Body of the People came to refer to the whole citizenry of the nation. And although the Anti-Federalist may have had mixed feelings about this reconceptualization, their amendments were attached to a document with a national reach. In particular, the Second Amendment created rights against the federal government, which by law governed all of America and whose Body of the People must therefore have included the whole of the American citizenry. In other words, any true Second Amendment revolution would have to involve a massive rising of the entire American people, nothing smaller. As noted, the Framers were quick to condemn local uprisings as rebellions, not true revolutions. Third, although theoretically revolutions against the federal government might grow up in the absence of support from state governments, the Framers thought that possibility highly unlikely because the problems of coordination would be so profound.

is, for the framers, such that even if it was meant to protect the militia, they chose specify that they wanted to further that purpose through individual right to arms so we are not now free to amend their choices.

Recently, Eugene Volokh has offered a sophisticated version of this argument. He acknowledges that the Framers may have written the Second Amendment largely to protect the militia, but he insist they deliberately decided to protect the militia through an individual right to arms. Thus, although they may have had a purpose in mind, they chose to specify how they wanted to further that purpose, and we are not now free to amend their choices. As a result, the operative language stands independent of its purpose clause: the Framers codified an individual right to arms and added the purpose clause as interesting surplusage that is irrelevant to its interpretation.

is grounded in the deep-set belief that the individual armed citizen is the key to protection against government excesses and protection in defense of freedom.

LaPierre argues that the Second Amendment reflects George Mason's 'deep-set belief that the individual armed citizen was the key to protection against government excesses and in defense of freedom'

2nd amendment, n.One-Liners

Keep exploring 2nd Amendment→

2nd amendment